buffnut453
Captain
Huh? There is no Gladiator. If there's no Gladiator, you can't have a Sea Gladiator. That's the whole point of the thread...if there's no Sea Gladiator, what would the FAA have used.
If no Sea Gladiator, what replaces the Hawker Nimrod?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Huh? There is no Gladiator. If there's no Gladiator, you can't have a Sea Gladiator. That's the whole point of the thread...if there's no Sea Gladiator, what would the FAA have used.
Shortround6
Major General
No, you missed the memo back in post #60
The position seems to be:
The Admiralty, rather than buy a hundred or so adaptations of plane that is in large scale production (relatively) as an near interim airplane while they wait for the far interim plane (Fulmar) to become available (the plane the Fulmar is based on has already flown) and the Admiralty issues specifications for the definitive planes they want powered by RR Griffons or Sabres, decides to extensively modify an RAF prototype land plane that has barely gone through flight trials and buy it in large numbers,
This new plane will not be ready until the same time (or after) the Fulmar but will eliminate the need to buy Wildcats/Martlets which don't even exist as a finished product at this point in time, which is 1 -2 years before the shooting starts. The new plane will be ever so much better against the Zero than the Fulmar 4 years in the future. (4 years in the future is when the Admiralty hopes to have the Griffon and Sabre powered planes in service).
buffnut453
Captain
No, you missed the memo back in post #60
I'm clearly not tracking the twists in this thread. Kevin J said "The Sea Gladiator would have entered service in 1937 and there would have been lots more of them." I thought the whole point was that there was no Sea Gladiator. I'll admit I missed the bit about the Gladiator still being in service...but that doesn't explain Kevin J's comment.
I think I'll go and lie down in a corner.
Kevin J
Banned
If the RAF hadn't bought the Gladiator, the FAA would have bought it as the Sea Gladiator. So service intro 1937, just like the A5M.
RW Mk. III
Airman 1st Class
The supposition (criteria) here is that the AM and RAF are dead set against the FAA getting gladiators for whatever reason.
Edited for clarity of point
- Thread starter
- #86
Admiral Beez
Major
Exactly. That was a creative workaround attempt though.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,995
- Jun 25, 2013
A carrier version of the F.5/34?
The RN/FAA could call it the Gloster Gyrfalcon (yes, I know it's not a seabird, but Gull, Guillemot aren't as scary, and Gannet should be kept aside for a dive bomber or an ASW aircraft)
The RN/FAA could call it the Gloster Gyrfalcon (yes, I know it's not a seabird, but Gull, Guillemot aren't as scary, and Gannet should be kept aside for a dive bomber or an ASW aircraft
)- Thread starter
- #88
Admiral Beez
Major
My vote is Gloster Goshawk. It's made for hunting over water.A carrier version of the F.5/34?
The RN/FAA could call it the Gloster Gyrfalcon (yes, I know it's not a seabird, but Gull, Guillemot aren't as scary, and Gannet should be kept aside for a dive bomber or an ASW aircraft
RW Mk. III
Airman 1st Class
I'm sorry but Gloster Ganymede is clearly the best choice. It's such a pretty plane.
- Thread starter
- #90
Admiral Beez
Major
Last edited:
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
Has to be the Vickers Venom. Fits the lifts, carries 8 guns. Better performance than a Sea Gladiator and excellent landing qualities suitable for carriers.
Shortround6
Major General
Why does this plane seem too good to be true?
Way, Way, Way, Way too good to be true.
It has a wing about 60% of the size of a Spitfire wing, it has just over 60% of the power (at best altitude) This assumes the engine runs correctly and does not overheat.
It weighed 72% as much as a Spitfire I with wooden prop and no protection.
Yet it carries the same war load?????
OK it carries less fuel for it's smaller engine but 50imp gal only go so far even with a small engine.
The engine itself is questionable. A mere 15.6 liters. To make the reported 625hp one source says it ran at 3550rpm. given it's short stroke not too outlandish but it's brother/cousin the Taurus was plagued with overheating issues for most of the time we are interested in operating at much lower altitudes.
There is no good alternative engine as the one used went about 830 lbs.
Way, Way, Way, Way too good to be true.
It has a wing about 60% of the size of a Spitfire wing, it has just over 60% of the power (at best altitude) This assumes the engine runs correctly and does not overheat.
It weighed 72% as much as a Spitfire I with wooden prop and no protection.
Yet it carries the same war load?????
OK it carries less fuel for it's smaller engine but 50imp gal only go so far even with a small engine.
The engine itself is questionable. A mere 15.6 liters. To make the reported 625hp one source says it ran at 3550rpm. given it's short stroke not too outlandish but it's brother/cousin the Taurus was plagued with overheating issues for most of the time we are interested in operating at much lower altitudes.
There is no good alternative engine as the one used went about 830 lbs.
Well, there's the Avro Arrow of the 1930s, the Gregor FDB-1:
Cancelled: The Gregor FDB-1 | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine
Cancelled: The Gregor FDB-1 | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Nice link. It lead to an article on the best built plane ever. Good stuff.
- Thread starter
- #95
Admiral Beez
Major
The Gregor, if made a few years earlier would have been one of the best biplane fighters of them all.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
That really is a sweet looking airplane.
- Thread starter
- #97
Admiral Beez
Major
The undercarriage looks like it would violate Leroy Grumman's US patent.
Perhaps CC&F got Grumman's permission, since the Canadian firm had produced Grumman's FF with the same system. Or CC&F mirrored the Grumman system but omitted elements of the patent, perhaps leading to the Gregor's undercarriage collapse during test, as reported by Wikipedia.
In my business experience it is very often the case that American firms omit or neglect to register their US patents in Canada, since we're too small to matter. Though you won't be able to sell the aircraft anywhere the patent is in force.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I was wondering about the landing gear. Does look Grumman.
- Thread starter
- #99
Admiral Beez
Major
I agree.
That side panel would help visibility too.
The undercarriage is narrow enough for folding wings, but still sufficiently spaced for carrier landings.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I think it would have been better at the CAP role then a Fulmar.
